Counter-Currents
1,698 words
I’m no economist. I don’t know whether the gold standard is a silver bullet or an anachronistic and deflationary hustle. I don’t quite understand how “social credit” would work.
My general feeling is that the money question is a secondary one, as a number of economic strategies have been shown to work when competently implemented on populations which start off with sufficient “human capital.”
Conversely, no economic strategy is going to work when the people entrusted to implement it are integrally hostile to us: When Jeffrey Dahmer is your surgeon, none of the surgical tools on the table are going to improve your prognosis.
When I was working within the system to pass an illegal immigration bill in Indiana, I found out the hard way that agribusiness and other industries relying on the exploitation of illegal immigrants were the real opponents. Groups like La Raza and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus play a peculiar and seemingly treasonous role (treasonous to their own people, that is) in being paid to help perpetuate a system where the people they’re supposed to be representing are able to invade here but only as a helot laboring caste. There’s no money in either granting them amnesty or deporting them, so the nativists and invaders are sure to remain frozen in the current stalemate.
If anything, we nativists might be smart to focus more narrowly on the issue of birthright citizenship, as the capitalists would probably find the idea of an hereditary helot laboring caste appealing. While America’s Jewish oligarchy actively promotes our dispossession for their own well-documented reasons, America’s nascent New Right must also consider how capitalism and the mercantile morality it projects also pose a grave threat to tribe, tradition, and transcendence. Forgive me for quoting a prominent anti-White Jewish ideologue, but I’m afraid Noam Chomsky said it best:
See, capitalism is not fundamentally racist — it can exploit racism for its purposes, but racism isn’t built into it. Capitalism basically wants people to be interchangable cogs, and differences among them, such as on the basis of race, usually are not functional. I mean, they may be functional for a period, like if you want a super exploited workforce or something, but those situations are kind of anomalous. Over the long term, you can expect capitalism to be anti-racist — just because its anti-human.
— Noam Chomsky, Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky
Capitalism is surely an effective method of acquiring wealth and power in a mature civilization, but when capitalists themselves truly seize control, they’re guaranteed to attack and undermine a civilization’s very foundations in search of profit. The East Asian nations, most prominently China, seem to have arrived at an effective model wherein an indigenous managerial elite rely on a sort of national capitalism, a market which is pretty much unregulated save for where the profit motive is trumped by the interest of the state. The increasingly wealthy capitalists may sooner or later translate their wealth into the power necessary to challenge the Communist Party’s hegemony, but it appears to be working well so far for the Chinese state, if not necessarily for the Chinese workers.
One who’s not an auto mechanic or engineer would be presumptuous and potentially self-defeating to insist that the car’s engine be designed a certain way. But when shopping for a car, one still needs to have a clear idea of the car’s purpose. While I do plan to study economics in more depth in the future, I don’t need to have done so in order to define how a Radical Traditionalist worldview impacts the economic realm. For example, a hierarchical and anti-egalitarian worldview is compatible with income inequality — even extreme income inequality. However, there is necessarily an upper constraint on how much capitalists can make and what that capital can purchase. To set no limit on that is to guarantee that wealthy oligarchs will amass the power necessary to replace the beneficent indigenous elites with their apparatchiks.
The elites do not owe the subjects happiness or abundance. As stewards, what they really owe them good health, defense, justice, continuity of culture and tradition, and a future. By this metric, North Korea’s admittedly problematic Kim dynasty exceeds America’s oligarchy. North Koreans may struggle in the present, but the future existence of the North Korean people has not been imperiled. While their abilities to express themselves and innovate have been inappropriately curtailed, they’re encouraged to celebrate their culture and identity. Future generations of North Koreans will likely have harsh criticisms of the Kim dynasty, but they’ll actually be around to express those criticisms.
As is so often the case with Jews, Chomsky’s creativity lies primarily in creative destruction. He very effectively deconstructs the strategies Western elites have exploited to control their minions both at home and abroad. His analytical powers mysteriously escape him when the topic changes to getting specific about the individuals and institutions actually doing what he so vividly outlines. His analytical powers also escape him when the topic changes to action. Like Alex Jones and others throughout the political spectrum who rail against “the elites” while also railing against “antisemitism,” their action items are either absent altogether or laughably underdeveloped.
Chomsky claims that “The consistent anarchist, then, should be a socialist, but a socialist of a particular sort. He will not only oppose alienated and specialized labor and look forward to the appropriation of capital by the whole body of workers, but he will also insist that this appropriation be direct, not exercised by some elite force acting in the name of the proletariat.” In summary, the workers of the world should sort of take back the wealth and power in a disorganized manner, trusting one another to equitably share whatever spoils they reap from the capitalists. If you’re struggling to imagine how this would actually work in practice, you’re not alone.
Ideologically consistent leftists are completely paralyzed when it comes down to action items because they deny human nature in favor of idealized abstractions and because their biases and taboos preclude naming the most influential and organized oligarchy of all. Occupy Wall Street’s unifying meme — opposing “the 1%” — is a deliberate act of self-censorship by those who know who the capitalist oligarchs are and an admission of ignorance by those who don’t. Humans exist in tribes and are directed by elites as surely as geese exist in flocks which organize and act in a predictable manner. Humans don’t exist in percentiles, and you can’t fight a revolution against an ephemeral statistical artifact.
While the pursuit of wealth can be and often is a positive force, capitalists can’t be entrusted with sovereign power. They’ll construct treaties to enrich themselves rather than the nation. They’ll exploit the military to defend their infrastructural investments abroad. They’ll construct laws and regulations which are anti-competitive, kicking the ladder away once they’ve reached the top. They’ll keep a boot firmly on the necks of our workers and pit them in a competitive race to the bottom against illiterate and impoverished migrant laborers at home and sweatshop laborers abroad. They’ll chop down the forests and even the mountains in search of wealth, dumping the waste products in our rivers and lakes.
R. L. Dabney, a prominent Presbyterian theologian who defended traditional Southern traditions and institutions in the wake of the Civil War, asserted that “American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward to perdition.” Unfortunately, American conservatism’s embrace of “free markets” and “free trade” exposes it as more than a mere shadow of Radicalism. In this way, it’s just as destructive to tribe, tradition, and transcendence as American liberalism.
Capitalism, an economic system driven only, according to its own theory, by the accumulation of profit, is at least as much the enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism, and those on the “right” who make a fetish of capitalism generally understand this and applaud it. The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones. Moreover, like communism, capitalism is based on an essential egalitarianism that refuses to distinguish between one consumer’s dollar and another. The reductionism and egalitarianism inherent in capitalism explains its destructive impact on social institutions. On the issue of immigration, capitalism is notorious for demanding cheap labor to undercut the cost of native workers. But it is not only in America that it has done so.
— Samuel T. Francis
America’s New Right movement can and should consider a variety of economic theories, but allowing the merchants to control the state and dictate its policies is incompatible with our shared ideals. Many of America’s paleoconservatives identified this problem, but were generally unwilling to challenge the Enlightenment ideals which were designed by and for our mercantile elites. A radical departure from contemporary orthodoxy is absolutely necessary to restore what we’ve lost, conserve what little remains to conserve, and chart a course to a future we belong in. This includes a rejection of not only the farcical extreme egalitarianism of today, but the abstract egalitarianism of our founding fathers and their founding documents. This even includes a rejection of democracy, a system which empowers the capitalists to buy up voting blocs in the same way equity firms buy up shares of corporations in the course of a hostile takeover.
Many White Advocates would prefer to limit the scope of our work to merely defending White identity and interests without indulging in such “extremism.” They argue that rejecting capitalism isn’t going to make it easier to get along with Tea Party voters. Rejecting democracy isn’t going to play well within our democratic political process. Both indigenous capitalists and Jewish elites are integrally anti-White, and ridding ourselves of both will require a radical departure from the mainstream. Our goals are not possible within this system. It will require a disciplined and determined vanguard capable of understanding, embodying, and conveying the radical transformation which will be necessary to challenge and replace the regnant oligarchy. I don’t really care what type of economic system will be preferred on that fine day when we take control, just as long as it’s being implemented by and for our nation and our state.
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
19 comments
The ‘economic system’ is predicated on the banking system; i.e. debt-finance. This is the crux of all issues. Brooks Adams can be very profitably read in conjunction with Oswald Spengler. All this has been worked out decades ago by Charles Coughlin, Ezra Pound, Gottfried Feder, John A Lee, Imperial Japan, Guernsey Island, etc. At the very time when people are seeing the manner by which the debt system operates in their own lives, nationally, locally and globally, the Right – in whatever country – is still pissing about with inanities. It has forgotten that the proverbial wheel has already been invented, tried in many states and proven to work. Whatever program is worked out and even implemented by the Right will not mean squat if the state does not have control over its banking system.
Talk about re-inventing the wheel. All you need to do is look at North Dakota: only state in the Union with its own State Bank. Untouched by the “global systemic crisis” for some reason. Even the non-PC Left, old Trotskyists like Cockburn or Kansas City economists like Michael Hudson, to say nothing of rogue trader Max Keiser, have figured out something’s up up there.
Perhaps I’m misreading you, or perhaps you misread me, but my conclusion was that we must gain control over our own financial system. I believe that economic considerations–beyond the fact that we must be the ones considering them–are secondary.
To the contrary, the article is exceptional in dealing with the character of capitalism. I feel that in general the ‘right’, whether in USA, New Zealand or England… focuses on symptoms rather than causes. There is still hogwash being discussed on the merits of a gold or silver standard; although from what I gather the price of gold has long been decided by a coterie who meet daily at N M Rothschilds . The USA has a great history of those who have advocated a new credit system, such as Coughlin, Irving Fisher; William G Simpson had a good intro. to the subject in which Way Western Man? A very quick education in economics can be gained from Ezra Pound’s little booklets, without being sideblinded by the technical jargon of professional economists, who have no substance.
The East Asian nations, most prominently China, seem to have arrived at an effective model wherein an indigenous managerial elite rely on a sort of national capitalism…
Essentially, everyone in China is “indigenous,” although the Han majority are more so than others, it seems. While not exactly related the the point of the article (because Western nations have a history of the rule of law that is lacking in China), there are structural problems within the CCP that encourage massive corruption. The current mystery surrounding Wang Lijun, his boss, Bo Xilai, and the center show that things are still quite precarious over there. It demonstrates that “old style” Maoism did not die with the arrest of the Jaing Qing clique, and that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is still a questionable proposition within the Party. We must observe closely this year’s transition as Hu Jintao steps down.
You are correct, though, that once the cat is out of the bag, it is difficult to once again catch. I would expect the CCP to “crack down” in the manner of the second Tiananmen incident (1989) if they felt mortally threatened. One must always factor in a possible Western banking crisis of even greater proportion, as the yuan is still more tied to the dollar than not, etc.
“Future generations of North Koreans will likely have harsh criticisms of the Kim dynasty, but they’ll actually be around to express those criticisms.”
I’ve observed, here and elsewhere, that not only is China’s successful non-market Capitalist system interesting as economics, but also the treatment of Mao both there and in Western “scholarly” [i.e., non-Neo-con] books, as national culture. The recent book from Oxford, China All You Need To Know, is explicitly aimed at “mutual misunderstandings” of what the Chinese think and do; for example, China flies off the handle when some Podunk congressman calls for sanctions, because they don’t understand our political system — congressmen have no power and are just posturing for election purposes. One example is “Why do the Chinese admire Mao” which patiently explains that, well, mistakes were made, but he is admired as the Father of Modern China, and basically for freeing China from Western control. Criticism of Mao as “the greatest monster of the XXth century” strikes them the way American patriots react to Leftists mocking the Founding Fathers as ‘racists” and “sexists”.
What’s interesting is this is the exact opposite of the treatment of Hitler, even [especially] in Germany itself. Hitler was far more successful economically than Mao or FDR, and like Mao, but unlike FDR, was actually trying to free Germany from the Banksters. But since the Banksters won, he becomes The Greatest Fiend in History, full stop.
Rather than whining about how ‘unfair’ it is to demonize Hitler “when Mao and Stalin were worse” we need to ask why Russia and China don’t demonize Stalin and Mao anyway. Answer: they won the war. [Russia doesn’t even recognize any “WWII” won by some American like Patton; they fought The Great Patriotic War under Stalin].
It’s not so much that communism is less destructive of tradition than capitalism, but the absence of Jews. The Jewish Encyclopedia says that there are so few in China “as to amount to zero” and as for Russia, despite all the Spotlight paranoia among “conservatives” Yockey tried to point out to them in the 50s that whoever was behind the revolution, by now Stalin was a nationalist who was clearing out the Jews. It’s no surprise that both countries have cultural continuity with a usable past, while Germany and the US are constantly being “taught” that their forefathers were EVIL.
The question as to why Chinese are not adverse to Mao has many facets. First, China is at least three countries. Shanghai (with an historical Western influence), the Special Economic Zones, the first being Shenzhen, and the rural areas. The people in these areas are all Chinese, but have some different outlooks. Young folks working in the cities (factory workers, etc) are quite Western oriented. They don’t know much about recent (post 1949) Chinese history since much information is controlled, and they did not live through the Cultural Revolution, or the Great Leap before. Deng Xiaoping, an economic rightist, and a man that had been purged several times by Mao and, later, by the ultra-left Jiang Qing clique, understood after he regained control, and after Mao’s death, that the Chairman was useful as a symbol. It was his decision to continue, albeit in a different fashion, the cult of personality attributed to the Helmsman. For Deng, Mao made mistakes, but the Socialist calculation was 70-30 in the Chairman’s favor.
Today, there is really nothing of Mao that is evident to most Chinese, other than his likeness on the money, a picture hanging over Tiananmen, and the souvenir ashtrays, etc. But while the Party long ago abandoned the idea of “two whatevers,” they still hold Mao to be a national hero. One can see this in movies such as the recent Founding of a Republic, where Mao is depicted almost as a liberal democrat, and a friend to children.
I find that, generally, mainland Chinese are of two minds. They see Mao as a man of the people. Alternately, Deng Xioping is viewed as a man for the rich. But political viewpoints and resulting impressions are tightly controlled. It is deceptive. I recall sitting in a Guangzhou coffee shop with some Chinese acquaintances when one unexpectedly asked me what I thought of life in a “police state” (his words). For the average person not engaged in political activity (and the average Chinese is never so engaged), it is a non-question. Within the cities one has about as much “freedom” as one finds in any Western city. And even spirituality (in the form of Confucian tradition) is now official (although unofficial groups such as Falun Dafa are always suspect).
All this being said, one must not have too optimistic a view of Chinese economics. Their central bank policy of fixing the yuan to the dollar (with a small float) has created troublesome inflation. Pollution is horrible; the noonday sun in GZ could be mistaken for the moon. Corruption is endemic within the CCP in spite of efforts from the center aimed at eradicating fraud, and so on and so forth. In fact, the recent Chongqing incident surrounding Wang Lijun probably centers around political/economic corruption, but hearkens back to an old Maoist tactic: “kill the chicken to scare the monkey.”
One must be careful to cite Socialism with Chinese Characteristics as a model for Western emulation. The rule of law is lacking completely (or at least mostly). At the same time, there is a sense that regardless of these problems, and they are major problems, the core being of the people consists of a common Chinese heritage. Multiculturalism is not really part of the equation. This is what the West lacks.
Another fine article, Matt.
You lay some important groundwork on which the enterprising young nationalist can begin thinking about economics.
The Austrian economists constantly remind us that every exchange in the market is a form of “voting.” In that regard, we can view a purist market-economy as the consistent (and unfortunate) outworking of an almost religious devotion to civic-nationalism and democratic egalitarianism.
Richard Weaver reminds us:
“When democracy is taken from its proper place and is allowed to fill the entire horizon, it produces an envious hatred not only of all distinction but even of all difference…So democracy, a valuable but limited political concept, has been elevated by some into a creed as comprehensive as a religion or a philosophy, already at the cost of widespread subversion.” ~ Visions of Order, pg. 15
Additionally, I think Tom Sunic’s recent interview with Andrew Fraser is a valuable help to understanding the foundations of a desirable nationalist economic theory. It all comes down (ultimately — as in all things) to our underlying philosophical commitments.
I would recommend watching carefully the documentary on the dollar crash that will appear on TV this very month, End of the Road.
I take Austrian economics not as blueprints of economics in an ethno-state, but as pristine diagnosis, at least in the mouth of Peter Schiff, of how the current economic system is going to crash. This, independently of the fact that several pundits of Austrian economics, including Schiff, are of Jewish background. (As an intuitive psychologist myself, though Freud was the Big Quack of psychology, I know that other Jews did genuine contributions to the understanding of deep psychology—see e.g., my references in the latest article of my blog, the product of years of research.)
A logical approach on the economics of the coming ethno-state is simply to study carefully the economic miracle of the Third Reich (which among many things rejected the gold standard).
Michael O’Meara’s articles, and a phrase by Johnson that appeared here, “In ancient Rome, as in modern America, the economic system and its imperatives are treated as absolute and fixed, whereas the people are treated as liquid and fungible” moved me to write the article “It is the Ring, stupid!”
But Japan also wields one of lesser rings (cf the metaphor on the One Ring in the piece linked above), and it has the same demographic problems: people stopped to reproduce. Therefore, it cannot be attributed to the Jews. If you are familiar with the bucolic, independent films made by the Japanese decades ago and compare it with the degeneracy in present-day Japan, you’ll see that the Japanese are also suffering from a “scourging of their Shire” so to speak.
Yup: capitalism, more than the Jews (who are merely the current wielders of the Ring) chew Norman Rockwell’s America and spit out Obama’s: just what Saruman did at both Isengard and the Shire.
right on matt. people get hung up on these things. controlling property, contracts, banks, those are all what power are about. from the ideological aspects to the scientific and verifiable aspecs of economics– to the extent that they exist- the bottom line is that the social group exercises control and control over money, contracts, property, finance, big corporations, the rules of the road, etc, all those are instrumentalities of power, and not positive social goods in themeselves.
So I mean that there is a lot of good in studying Austrian economics in terms of understanding markets, money mechanics, and technical things like that– but all the individualst Randian nonsense is just a whole lot of jewish contrived poison for the common good.
It took Whitehead and Russell hundreds of pages filled with arcane equations to prove that 1 + 1 = 2, so why continue to listen to economists who are paid to convince the public that 2 + 2 = 5: something the esteemed authors of The Principia Mathematica knew to be absurd.
Frederick Soddy, himself a Nobel laureate, had this to say about the multitude of hopeless theories that serve the greed of the banker rather than the need of the people:
Soddy has been called “the father of nuclear fission” and in 1912 he discovered the (general) isotope. Following the First World War he became increasingly concerned with the abuse of science and the fate of mankind. Eventually he turned his mind to devising a system of National Economics that actually worked, and his solutions remain as valid today as they did when presented in the 1920s and 1930s. In fact, they are vital to our cause for unless we take control of the issue of money then we can never hope to win, or even survive as a race.
In 1926 Soddy published Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt, dedicating this work to the monetary reformer Arthur Kitson. I don’t think there’s a copy of this book online, however, some of Kitson’s books are available, and of particular interest is: A Fraudulent Standard http://www.archive.org/details/fraudulentstanda00kitsuoft in which Kitson outlines the idea of an Invariable Unit of Value.
Soddy’s later work The Role of Money is available for download and is a ‘must’ study: http://www.archive.org/details/roleofmoney032861mbp
K R. Bolton is correct; all of what is needed for a viable system of Nationalist Economics has been worked out for us already and simply needs to be brought forward into the present. It doesn’t matter that the great body of this work is from an earlier time and is often written in what the Harry Potter generation might consider ‘’antique’’ language as the logic remains sound. As Mr Bolton points out; what’s the point in trying to reinvent the wheel?
Indeed, a young man named Arian Nevin has brought Soddy’s ideas forward in his book: National Economy: The Way to Abundance, and I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone interested in this most important subject. Nevin’s website also has some interesting articles and can be found here: http://nationaleconomy.net/articles/
The great industrialist Henry Ford is well known in White nationalist circles for his views on the Jewish Question and his efforts to bring peace during The Great War, but what’s not generally known, is that Ford along with his friend Thomas Edison (who had his own troubles with the Jews) was also a strong advocate for the issue of interest free money while dead set against Gold based economies.
In December 1921, Ford and Edison spent three days at the Wilson Dam and the Muscle Shoals Water Power Project. There they met with the national press and explained in some detail their reasons for calling for debt free money. The New York Times published some of Ford’s thoughts and ideas and they can be examined in the following pdf with the headline:
FORD HOPES TO USE MUSCLE SHOALS TO END WARS – Wants the Government to Issue Non-Interest Bearing Notes to Cover Cost of Completion.
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=990DE1DB1539E133A25757C0A9649D946095D6CF
White Nationalists must develop the confidence to make this issue of socio-economic control a non-negotiable policy alongside our racial survival and security. Only with these foundations in place can we hope to form an effective movement and set about OUR task on OUR terms.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Some really wonderful comments in this thread, showing that we are maturing to the point of developing our own solutions, and seeing through the facades and false foundations of the arguments that led us to our sad state of affairs.
Let’s learn from the excellent example offered by Kerry Bolton: Don’t get involved in the arcana, of gold standards versus silver standard, and various ratios thereof. At the end of the day, what backs all currencies is one of two things, usually in combination, and those are faith, and force.
Gold and silver only serve to provide false Gods for a false Faith, and mandate the use of force in their service.
Full thanks to Henry for reminding us that Soddy is as valuable today as he was then, and linking to an invaluable Soddy resource.
What’s in YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
But I assume gold is still a good investment for the individual against inflation? Did you see 60 minutes the other night? Hindus love their gold jewelry and see it as an investment. Currencies come and curriencies go, but gold is. Edgar J Steele always advised people to invest in it – and he is no pawn of the Bankers. Don’t know what he thinks about social credit. I think he had hoped to restore the American Republic and perhaps the gold standard.
I like the way Covington put aside their differences and now supports him as a hero of the Homeland. That’s the proper use of a human being. As the Commisar said in “The Last Emperor” when the Emperor accused him of using him: everyone is used by someone, is that so bad?
If you are buying gold as an insurance policy, not as an investment, then it makes sense. Because, yes, gold will always be in some demand.
THEIR GOAL IS GENOCIDE. OURS. WHAT’S YOURS?
Jaego Scornze in blockquote:
Third World nations have never had remotely stable fiat currencies, and gold has always been the choice of a store of value.
For all of the recent talk concerning India and Iran settling with gold instead of the US dollar, the FACT of the matter is, they are bartering. This is exactly what Uncle Adolf did to get around the international financial control systems.
For fun, incidentally, go to your financial site and plot gold versus oil versus the US dollar. Note how well oil and gold track one another? Think this is by accident? At the end of the day, all economics is physical economics, and the Arabs take dollars for oil, and turn the dollars into gold.
At our level, remembering that the gold dealers send in a 1099 to Treasury every time you buy, I would expect soft confiscation by value eradication, to wit, an excess profits tax, if things get REALLY bad.
The unofficial motto of Smith and Wesson is “Masters of Alchemy: Turning Lead into Gold for more than 100 years.” You see how this is done, of course.
I suspect – and I came up in economics through Baumol, so I know a little bit about profits and optimization – that a major focus of the Next Economy will note be the duality between efficiency and effectiveness, but efficiency and resilience as the test of effectiveness. Productive skills and talents will serve you in good stead. Gold is nice. Knowing how to fix generators is better, as is basic first aid training, and even some of the lower levels of EMT training. Or being able to grow food. You get the idea. Gold is a store of value, but you can add value to situations. Ironically, it just might be people like you who keep the people who have gold alive. If things get REALLY BAD, like EMP weapons bad, your little EMT satchel and your knowledge will be helpful. A stock of fresh, current antibiotics, and some tetanus serum, will prove very valuable to people who might die from the infections of minor cuts. Think they will trade that gold for some amoxicillin?
Bet on it.
One of the reasons for the dollar and gold doing so well, incidentally, seems to be the cold, hard fact that Greece does not have an FDIC. When the bank goes, your life savings go with it. Think about that. All that Greek money has to go somewhere, and this is true for certain regions of the Eurozone, as well. As Richard Russell says, “Let the trend be your friend.”
Learn from from Brother Steele’s example: where can you store it, that “they” can’t steal it? If you place it in a bank’s safe deposit box, what is to stop someone from replacing it with gold plated duplicates?
If a couple of ounces of gold will get you over the city border to safety, so much the better. Don’t be obsessed with what is a store of value. Focus on adding value yourself, to yourself, and being more valuable as time goes on.
Covington is so far ahead of everyone else, it just frightens me, and makes me all the more satisfied that I am on The Right Side.
People “that are used” add enough value to be useful, and can exchange that value for other valuable things. There are no victims, only people who made choices and learn from the outcomes, or not, as they choose.
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Not if you come in when it’s just peaked….Nor if a President does what Roosevelt did in 1933, confiscating gold at a $20.72, and then debasing those dollars by inflating the value of the plundered gold 75% by decree. When it’s used as money, gold is just as much a ‘’fiat’ currency as paper
Hindus also worship cows, drink bovine piss, bathe in a river filled with shit and rotting corpses and murder their daughters by the million – should we also be influenced by these aspects of their culture?
If memory serves, he actually recommended silver over gold as it’s plentiful and more important to industry so less likely to be confiscated if there should be a return to a metallic standard as the faux ”Austrians” recommend.
Be VERY careful of what you wish for: even if all that glitters is gold (and it isn’t) another Executive Order 6102 may be just around the corner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
In the Book of the Law, Crowley’s Angel says, “From Gold forge Steel”.
Regarding economics, I don’t think that we should try to reinvent the wheel, but I do think that we need to bring our literature up to date. We might take a few cues from Ezra Pound in these matters:
“We need in economics: 1. simplification of terminology; 2. articulation of terminology (‘distinguish the root from the branch’).
“We need: 3. less intolerance towards converging movements; 4. to hammer on root ideas.”
And more generally:
“Day by day make it new
cut underbrush,
pile the logs
keep it growing.”
“I’m no economist.”
It’s true that a deep understanding of economics isn’t needed to see that economic growth for brown people won’t do us any good. It should be obvious that the defense of our existence must take precedence over economic growth. But today’s economists are afraid to speak up for White interests. If they cannot bring themselves to say that the economy is breaking down because of mass immigration, I don’t think we can trust them about much else. Many economists are also afraid to say that economic growth isn’t always worth the social cost (on the tribe, tradition, and transcendence). And they won’t advocate any authoritarian and radical intervention by a revolutionary government. If they think that nothing can be changed, they can be of no help.
“When I was working within the system to pass an illegal immigration bill in Indiana, I found out the hard way that agribusiness and other industries relying on the exploitation of illegal immigrants were the real opponents.”
The real opponents are the Jews!
“capitalism and the mercantile morality it projects”
There is nothing wrong in investing money in useful activities to earn a profit. I think there is a problem with today’s mercantile ideology, but we need a more precise description of what’s wrong. White people today don’t defend their existence, but they don’t defend their financial interests either. So, it’s hard to argue that there is something wrong with their mercantile morality. Who really has a mercantile morality? Not most White people. I think the real problem, as always, is the Jewish control on government, the mass media and the public debate.
“when capitalists themselves truly seize control, they’re guaranteed to attack and undermine a civilization’s very foundations in search of profit”
I don’t think that idea makes much sense. In a plutocracy, there is no reason the plutocrats at the top should suddenly decide to destroy society. In fact, I think the destruction of the White world by the means of mass immigration is decreasing profits for the top capitalists. At least, if they were interested in increasing their profits, they would import Chinese manpower instead of low IQ violent brown people. Anyway, I don’t think the West is ruled by agribusiness and other industries relying on the exploitation of illegal immigrants.
Samuel Francis quote: “The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones.”
That’s not a good way to put it. Capitalism doesn’t have an opinion about tradition or immigration. We have to precisely identify who opposes tradition and promotes immigration, who is buying the politicians, and who censors and intimidates those who defend tradition and oppose immigration. It’s not good enough to blame “capitalism”. Anyway, it’s obvious that capitalism doesn’t work well unless it is framed by rules and regulations. If the rules are insufficient, the solution is to reinforce them or change them, not to blame capitalism in general.
“America’s New Right movement can and should consider a variety of economic theories”
I think America’s New Right movement should call itself something else than “New Right”. In fact, it should be called “the Real Left” since it favors protecting the White lower class and imposing more regulations on capitalism.
“rejecting capitalism”
You cannot reject capitalism. You can only choose a different kind of capitalism.
“Rejecting democracy”
What should be rejected is phony democracy, so as to save white people from genocide.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment